Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 22

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences

ISSN 2454-5899

Moon et al.
Special Issue Volume 2 Issue 1, pp. 555-576
Date of Publication: 13th December, 2016
DOI-https://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2016.s21.555576

PREVENTING SUBSTANCE ABUSE AMONG ADOLESCENTS:


EVALUATION OF AN INTEGRATED MODEL COMBINING
LIFE SKILLS TRANING AND PARENT TRANING
Sung Seek Moon
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
sungseek@mailbox.sc.edu
Yi Jin Kim
University of Mississippi, Mississippi, Mississippi River, USA
yjkim@olemiss.edu
S. Mo Jang
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
mo7788@gmail.com
Seokwon Yoon
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
yoon@mailbox.sc.edu
Jeongsuk Kim
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
jeongsuk@email.sc.edu

Abstract
This study examines the effectiveness of an integrated model combining Life Skills Training
(LST) for students and Love and Logic Training (LLT) for parents. 310 middle school students
and 49 parents were participated in the study. A paired sample t-test was computed to compare
pre and post-test scores for each participant. An independent sample t-test was used to
2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

555

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

determine if statistical differences exist between the treatment and control groups. Alcohol use
and resistance to alcohol use among both treatment and control groups were significantly
changed after the intervention in a positive way. No significant change in substance use was
found in both groups. When it comes to comparison between treatment and control groups, a
significant difference was found only in resistance to alcohol use, meaning participants in
treatment group showed significantly higher level of resistance to alcohol use than control group
after the intervention. Implications of these results for practice and training were discussed.
Keywords
Life skills training, Love and Logic, Substance abuse, Prevention, Adolescent

1. Introduction
Adolescent substance use continues to be a significant public health concern. Nationwide,
epidemiological statistics from the Center for Disease Control (CDC, 2010) suggest that youth
continue to exhibit an alarmingly high prevalence of substance use behaviors. According to the
2013 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey in United States, 41.1% of high school students
have tried cigarette smoking at some point; 22.4% of students reported current cigarette use,
current smokeless tobacco use, or current cigar use; 66.2% of students have drunk alcohol at
some point; 34.9% reported current alcohol use; 40.7% of students have used marijuana at some
point; 23.4% of students reported current marijuana use; 5.5% of students had used cocaine at
some point; 8.9% have used inhalants at some point; 6.6% have used ecstasy at some point; 2.2%
of students have used heroin at some point; and 3.2% of students have used methamphetamines
at some point (CDC, 2014).
Substance use behaviors are linked to several negative outcomes, including criminal
involvement (Boyd, Fast, & Small, 2016; Collette, Pakzad, & Bergheul, 2015), lowered school
achievement (Arthur et al., 2015), unintended pregnancy (Connery, Albright, & Rodolico, 2014),

2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.


Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

556

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

and HIV (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010), which are the leading causes
of youth morbidity and mortality.
There is growing recognition and evidence that parenting and family interventions may
play a critical role in reducing substance use among adolescents (Kuntsche & Kuntsche, 2016;
Marsiglia et al., 2016; Pantin et al., 2009). Adolescents may benefit from a multi-component
program given that the family serves as the principal influence of social adjustment (Parcel &
Dufur, 2001).
Cross-sectional correlational studies have found that family factors are associated with
decreased odds of substance use (Crawford & Novak, 2002; Hadley et al., 2016; Kuendig &
Kuntsche, 2006). Literature suggests that adolescents who spend more time with their parents,
have more conversations with their parents, perceive greater family support, and feel more
connected to their families are less likely to use alcohol and other substances (Curran, 2007;
Hadley et al., 2016; Mc Laughlin, Campbell, & Mc Colgan, 2016).
Service providers have strongly agreed on the need for developing and implementing a
multi-component model including parents. However, few trials of multi-component models have
been undertaken. Scholars and practitioners continue to have little idea of the effects of multicomponent substance use prevention program. To fill this gap, this article examines the
effectiveness of a multi-component model combining Life Skills Training (LST) for students and
Love and Logic training for their parents. It is hypothesized that adolescents participating in the
multi-component model including parent training will report significantly lower levels of
substance use (at post-test) compared to adolescents who receive the substance abuse curriculum
without their parents involvement.

2. Literature Review
2.1 Risk Factors as Intervention Targets
Risks for substance abuse often involve individual and eco developmental factors. At the
individual level, poor life skills and decision making of youth are widely supported explanations
2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

557

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

for substance use (Botvin & Griffin, 2014; Sussman et al., 2004; Sussman, Rohrbach, & Mihalic,
2004). At the eco developmental level, youth substance abuse can be seen as the result of an
impoverished opportunity structure where families, schools, and other institutions fail to provide
opportunities, skills, and reinforcements for prosocial involvement (Botvin & Griffin, 2014;
Hadley et al., 2016). In the next section, we selectively review risk factors for youth substance
use focusing on risk factors that are malleable and inform the design of LST and Love and Logic.
2.2 Life Skills and Substance Use
One of the crucial parts of drug abuse prevention programs is teaching life skills to help
youth cope with their drug use. Life skills were defined by the Word Health Organization as
skills and competencies that enable individuals to deal adequately with their daily challenges and
their developmental tasks such as communication skills, problem solving, and assertiveness
(1997). Research has found that adolescents who joined life skills training programs were more
likely to reduce their drug use than those who did not (Botvin & Griffin, 2014; Spaeth,
Weichold, Silbereisen, & Wiesner, 2010; Wenzel, Weichold, & Silbereisen, 2009). Several
researches have also indicated that adolescents who use drugs have poor life skills, which put
them at greater risk of becoming users and decreasing their chances of abstaining from using
substances (Botvin, Baker, Dusenbury, Botvin, & Diaz 1995; Weichold & Blumenthal, 2016).
2.3 Decision-Making and Substance Use
Decision-making skills are active strategies to collect information, solve problems, weigh
pros and cons, and choose proper actions (Byrnes, 1998). Decision-making has consistently been
regarded as a protective factor in substance use research (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992;
Paglia & Room, 1999; Trudeau, Lillehoj, Spoth, & Redmond, 2003). For example, poor
decision-making skills are significantly associated with substance use among adolescents
(Epstein et al., 1999; Scheier & Botvin, 1998). Thus, decision-making skills are continually
included in substance prevention programs for youth (Tobler et al., 2000).
2.4 Eco developmental Influences on Substance Use
Eco developmental models of health posit that the health of an individual is determined
not only by individual genetic factors and behaviors, but also by environmental and social
2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

558

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

influences at family, community, and society levels (Edberg, 2007). A large body of research has
been conducted on eco developmental influences on adolescent substance. Generally speaking,
various problem behaviors in adolescence are highly correlated with one another, such that eco
developmental mechanisms that predict one problem behavior (e.g., substance abuse) also
predict other problem behaviors (e.g., violence) (Telleen, Kim, & Pesce, 2009). Important eco
developmental predictors of substance use emerge from a number of social levels and systems.
For example, processes occurring within the family, such as communication (Noyori-Corbett &
Moon, 2010), support (Guerrero et al., 2010), and positive parental involvement (Moon, Patton,
& Rao, 2010) are negatively predictive of adolescent substance use and violence. Moreover, a
number of studies have indicated that provision of parental warmth and support is associated
with less adolescent substance use (Cleveland, Feinberg, & Greenber, 2010). Furthermore,
adolescents who had more time to spend with their parents had a tendency to show lower rates of
alcohol and other substance use (Crawford & Novak, 2002; Hadley et al., 2016; Kuendig &
Kuntsche, 2006). Similarly, processes occurring at school, such as school bonding and interest
(Moon, Patton, & Rao, 2010), and processes occurring in the peer network, such as association
with deviant or risk-taking peers (Casey & Beadnell, 2010), have been found to be strongly
related to adolescent substance use. Processes that do not directly involve the adolescent are also
predictive of adolescent substance use. Connections between the adolescents contexts, such as
parental involvement in school and parental monitoring of peers, are negatively predictive of
substance use in adolescence (Moon, Patton, & Rao, 2010; Noyori-Corbett & Moon, 2010).
Processes occurring in the parents own ecosystem, such as social support for parents and
parents stressors, may affect adolescent risk-taking behaviors indirectly through their effects on
parenting (Galambos, Sears, Almeida, & Kolaric, 1995).
2.5 Extant Prevention Programs: The Need to Include Parent Training
Most well-known substance abuse prevention programs are classified into two categories:
1) information provision models such as DARE (Singh et al., 2011) and Health Belief Models
(Kim & Zane, 2016), and 2) social influence models including LST (Botvin et al., 1995), Social
Competence Programs (Caplan, Choy, & Whitmore, 1992) and Resistance Strategies Trainings
2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

559

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

such as Project SMART (Hansen et al., 1988), Project ALERT (Ellickson & Bell, 1990;
Ellikson, Bell, & McGuigan, 1993), and DRS (Marsiglia, Kulis, & Hecht, 2001). While the
former has generally been found to be ineffective, social influence models have been identified
as better practice prevention programs by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. A meta-analysis
conducted on resistance skills training programs has established their effectiveness (Tobler,
1997).
We reviewed 20 prevention programs for adolescents and found that only two programs
(Thriving Teens & Eu-Dap School Program) have a component for parents. However, only one
of these programs (Thriving Teens) was based in the United States. Thriving Teens guides
parents to: (1) build and maintain a positive relationship; (2) balance that positive relationship
with the use of effective guidance and discipline for the teen years; (3) understand the
developmental challenges teens face and help them identify pressures teens experience that may
lead to substance use; (4) improve parental problem-solving skills; and, (5) teach their teens
effective problem-solving and refusal skills (Gallagher & Bruzzese, 2004). The results of the
initial investigation of Thriving Teens indicated that parents report feeling more confident in
taking the necessary steps to prevent substance use in their children. Parents in the treatment
group also report that they believe they can communicate more effectively, spell out rules about
substances, and create more positive family activities compared to those in the control group
(Gallagher & Bruzzese, 2004). The EU-Dap program, based on the comprehensive social
influence approach (Sussman et al., 2004), incorporates life skill elements and is designed to
prevent the use of tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs. The Eu-Dap includes two components: a
peer-related curriculum and a parent-related curriculum. A large cluster randomized sample in
seven European countries reported that 15 months after the completion of the program, exposure
to Eu-Dap was associated with a significantly lower prevalence of alcohol and marijuana use in
the past 30 days (Faggiano et al., 2005).

3. Methods
2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

560

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

3.1 Design
A non-equivalent comparison group quasi-experimental design was used. Students were
purposively assigned to either the treatment or control group according to parents willingness to
take the training. In this study, the treatment group received the Life Skills curriculum for
children and Love and Logic training for their parents, whereas in the control group, children
received the Life Skills curriculum only. Children whose mothers agreed to take the Love and
Logic training were assigned to the treatment group. The primary data collection method was
written surveys. Surveys were administered at school to each of the participants in the treatment
and control groups. Both treatment and control groups were assessed immediately prior to
intervention. Six months after program conclusion, post-test data were collected.
3.2 Participants
Inclusion criteria for the current study were: 1) Be 12 years of age or be in the 6th or 7th
grade; 2) be fluent in reading, writing, and understanding the English language; 3) have no
cognitive limitations; and 4) not be institutionalized. Exclusion criteria: 1) meets DSM-IV
criteria for dependence of illicit drugs; 2) has limited English proficiency; 3) has DSM-IV
diagnosis of any psychiatric disorder; and 4) is receiving in-patient treatment. Inclusion criteria
for parents were 1) be fluent in reading, writing, and understanding the English language, 2) have
no cognitive limitations; and 3) not be institutionalized. Children whose parents were limited
English proficient were excluded from the proposed study. Participants were recruited from two
middle schools where Life Skills Training has been traditionally offered. Letters were sent to
parents of all students in the two participating schools, inviting them to participate in the study in
two ways: (1) child only (control group) and (2) child and parent together (treatment group). Of
the 310 students whose parents returned the consent forms, 261 permitted kids to participate in
the study (control group). 49 indicated both kids and parents would participate in the study
(treatment group). The adolescent gender distribution in the two groups was not statistically
different (p > .20). The mean age of the adolescents was 12.52 years (SD = 0.55; range from
10.69 to 14.89 years). The largest percentage of participants were Caucasian (76 %), followed by
African American (2.9%), Asian (2.6%), and other (18.5%).
2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

561

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Students (N = 310)


Demographic Variables

n (%) or M (SD)
Control group

Treatment group

(n = 261)

(n = 49)

12.49 (0.55)

12.55 (0.54)

Male

116 (44.4%)

30 (61.2%)

Female

145 (55.6%)

19 (38.8%)

200 (76.6%)

37 (75.5%)

African American

10 (3.8%)

1 (2.0%)

Asian

8 (3.1%)

1 (2.0%)

Hispanic

6 (2.3%)

2 (4.1%)

American Indian

3 (1.1%)

0 (0.0%)

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

1 (0.4%)

0 (0.0%)

33 (12.6%)

8 (16.3%)

Age
Gender

Race
Caucasian

More than one race

4. Intervention
4.1 Life Skills Training for children
In the proposed study, the treatment group received an integrated program which
consisted of the Botvin Life Skills Training (LST) curriculum and Love and Logic for their
2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

562

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

parents whereas the control group only received the Life Skills Training for the children. The
LST high school program consists of 10 class sessions. Each session takes approximately 40-45
minutes. LST is comprised of two theory-based thematic content components, cognitive
misperception correction and behavioral skills instruction. Cognitive perception information is
offered to change adolescents attitudes/beliefs regarding their substance use. For example, one
program activity involves students examining drug use myths, or questionable expectancies
students may have regarding the effects of drugs. These misperceptions often lead students to
justify their drug use. The behavioral skills material provides instruction in social skills and
behavioral self-management, which can facilitate the ability of adolescents to bond flexibly with
a variety of peer groups, to seek out social support when needed, and to minimize stressful,
conflict-type interactions (Botvin, Griffin, Paul, & Macaulay, 2003).
4.2 Love and Logic for Parents
Love and Logic training was presented over a seven-week period, with one session
conducted per week. Each session lasted approximately two hours. Love and Logic training is
guided by five basic principles, each firmly grounded in research: (1) preserve and enhance the
childs self-concept; (2) teach children how to own and solve the problems they create; (3) share
the control and decision-making; (4) combine consequences with high levels of empathy and
warmth; and (5) build the adult-child relationship (Fay, 2012). A key component of the training
involves giving parents a firm rationale for each of the above principles, as well as practical tools
for following them.

5. Measures
The outcome evaluation includes measures on alcohol and substance use and resistance to
alcohol use.
5.1 Alcohol and Substance use
To measure the severity of alcohol and substance use, adolescents self report of
cigarette, alcohol, and illicit drug use were assessed using 20 items from the Monitoring the

2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.


Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

563

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

Future Survey (MTF) (Johnston, OMalley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2009). Our measure
consists of the number of times each substance was used: On how many occasions have you had
beer to drink?; How frequently have you smoked cigarettes?; or On how many occasions
have you used marijuana? Each item ranged from 0 (0 times) to 6 (more than 40 times).
5.2 Resistance to alcohol use
Participants were asked how sure they were that they could resist drinking alcohol in the
given circumstances. The measure consists of 36 items that presented a list of situations in which
adolescents may find themselves drinking alcohol: How sure are you that you could resist
drinking alcohol when you are angry?; When you are at a party? or When someone offers
you alcohol? These questions ranged from 1 (I am very sure I would drink) to 6 (I am very sure
I would not drink).

6. Analysis
A number of statistical tests were used for the analysis. A paired sample t-test was
computed to compare pre and post-test scores for each participant. An independent sample t-test
was used to determine if statistical differences exist between the treatment and control groups.
All hypotheses tests were conducted with 95% confidence level. Effect sizes were calculated for
statistically significant differences found between the treatment and control group. All the
numerical analyses were performed using the SPSS 22 statistical software.

7. Results

7.1 Comparison of Means of Pretest between Control and Treatment Groups


An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare levels of alcohol and substance
use and resistance to alcohol use between control and treatment groups in pre-test. Mean and
standard deviation of both groups have been depicted in Table 2. No significant differences were
found between the two groups. This result suggests that there was not any significant difference
2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

564

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

between the control and treatment groups on the levels of alcohol and substance use, and
resistance to alcohol use before the intervention. This result supports our first hypothesis that
characteristics of participants in both groups would be similar in the baseline survey.

Table 2: Comparison of Pretest of Control & Treatment Groups (N = 310)


M (SD) con

M (SD) tre

M (SD)dif

t (df)

Alcohol Use

11.01 (0.14)

11.57 (4.09)

- 0.56 (.58)

- 0.96 (48.02) n.s.

Substance Use

10.03 (0.24)

10.06 (0.43)

- 0.03 (.04)

- 0.62 (308) n.s.

198.47 (20.11)

1.37 (2.87)

0.48 (48.03) n.s.

Measures

Resistance to Alcohol Use 199.84 (0.87)

Note. M (SD) con = mean (standard deviation) control group, M tre = mean (standard deviation) treatment
group, M (SD) dif = mean (standard deviation) difference between control and treatment group.
n.s.
= not significant.

7.2 Effectiveness of LST in Control Group


The adolescents who received LST and whose parents did not participate were considered
the control group. A paired sample t-test was performed to verify changes between pre- and posttest of the control group. There was significant difference in the level of alcohol use (M
0.34, SD = 2.22, t(260) = 2.51, p < .05) and resistance to alcohol use (M
t(260) = -2.19, p < .05).

dif

dif

= -0.57, SD = 4.22,

No significant change was found in substance use. The results

illustrated that LST significantly decreased alcohol use and significantly increased the level of
resistance to alcohol use among adolescents. In addition, LST was not effective in reducing the
level of substance use. Results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Analyses of Pre & Posttest of Control Group (N = 261)
Measures

M (SD) pre

M (SD) post

M (SD) dif

t (df)

Alcohol Use

11.01 (0.14)

10.67 (2.23)

0.34 (2.22)

2.51 (260)*

2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.


Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

565

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

Substance Use

10.03 (0.24)

10.02 (0.19)

0.01 (0.14)

1.34 (260) n.s.

Resistance to Alcohol Use

199.84 (0.87)

200.41 (4.21)

- 0.57 (4.22)

-2.19 (260)*

Note. M (SD) pre = mean (standard deviation) pretest, M (SD) post = mean (standard deviation) posttest, M
(SD) dif = mean (standard deviation) difference between pre- and posttest, NA = not applicable.
n.s.
= not significant. *p < .05.

7.3 Effectiveness of the combination of LST for children and Love and Logic Training for
parents
The students who received LST and whose parents participated in Love and Logic
Training were categorized as the treatment group. A paired sample t-test was used to evaluate the
effectiveness of the combination of LST for children and Love and Logic Training for parents on
adolescents alcohol and substance use and resistance. The results (see Table 4) showed
significant change in alcohol use (M dif = 1.08, SD = 3.68, t(48) = 2.06, p < .05) and resistance to
alcohol use (M

dif

= -9.08, SD = 16.84, t(48) = -3.78, p < .001) between pre- and post-test of

treatment group. These results indicated that LST for children and Love and Logic Training for
parents was significant in reducing childrens alcohol use and increasing resistance to alcohol
use. However, the combination of trainings did not make significant changes in the level of
substance use among adolescents.
Table 4: Analyses of Pre & Posttest of Treatment Group (N = 49)
Measures

M (SD) pre

M (SD) post

M (SD) dif

t (df)

Alcohol Use

11.57 (4.09)

10.49 (2.38)

1.08 (3.68)

2.06 (48) *

Substance Use

10.06 (0.43)

10.02 (0.14)

0.04 (0.29)

1.00 (48) n.s.

Resistance to Alcohol Use

198.47 (20.11)

207.55 (12.83)

- 9.08 (16.84)

- 3.78 (48) ***

Note. M (SD) pre = mean (standard deviation) pretest, M (SD) post = mean (standard deviation) posttest, M
(SD) dif = mean (standard deviation) difference between pre- and posttest.
n.s.
= not significant. *p < .05. ***p < .001.

2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.


Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

566

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

7.4 Comparison of Means of Posttest between Control and Treatment Groups


To compare the scores of each variable between treatment and control groups in post-test,
an independent sample t-test was conducted. As depicted in Table 5, significant difference was
found only in resistance to alcohol use between the two groups (M dif = -7.14, SD = 1.85, t(49.96)
= -3.86, p < .001). The results indicated that the treatment group showed higher increased
resistance to alcohol use than the control group. In other words, the adolescents who received
LST and whose parents participated in Love and Logic Training showed significantly higher
levels of resistance to alcohol use than the adolescents who only received LST. Differences in
alcohol and substance use between the two groups were not significant. These results partially
support the second hypothesis that the treatment group will show significantly lower rates of
alcohol and substance use and higher levels of resistance to alcohol use in post-test compared to
control group.
Table 5: Comparison of Posttest of Control & Treatment Groups (N = 310)
Measures

M (SD) con

M (SD) tre

M (SD) dif

t (df)

Alcohol Use

10.67 (2.23)

10.49 (2.38)

0.18 (0.35)

0.50 (308) n.s.

Substance Use

10.02 (0.19)

10.02 (0.14)

0.00 (0.03)

0.09 (308) n.s.

Resistance to Alcohol Use

200.41 (4.21)

207.55 (12.83)

- 7.14 (1.85)

- 3.86 (49.96) ***

Note. M (SD) con = mean (standard deviation) control group, M tre = mean (standard deviation) treatment
group, M dif = mean difference. We also conducted an ANCOVA to control the pretest conditions of three
variables but had the identical results.
n.s.
= not significant. ***p < .001.

8. Discussion
Despite increasing evidence that parental support is essential for youth substance
prevention programs, few existing interventions employ parenting training (Hadley et al., 2016;
Crawford & Novak, 2002; Kuendig & Kuntsche, 2006). Previous findings indicated that teens
are less likely to use alcohol and other substances when they have open communication with
2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

567

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

their parents and receive emotional support from their family members (Hadley et al., 2016;
Crawford & Novak, 2002; Curran, 2007; Kuendig & Kuntsche, 2006). Following these
recommendations, we developed an integrated program that combined the Life Skills curriculum
for kids and Love and Logic training for their parents.
Our longitudinal analysis revealed both training conditions. The kids training only
program and the kids and mothers training program were successful in reducing alcohol use and
increasing resistance to alcohol. The results also demonstrated the importance of parenting
programs, showing that school children tended to report higher levels of resistance to alcohol
when a parent training component was added to the child training component of the prevention
program, compared to when only the child training component was included. This study provides
initial evidence that school-based curriculum targeting parents can also increase childrens
resistance to alcohol. This finding extends previous work on the important role of family
members in teens normative behavior (Smith, Faulk, & Sizer, 2016) but additionally suggests
that it is not enough to emphasize the importance of parenting. Instead, this result shows that
these parents can be educated via an intervention program. The findings strongly suggest that
systematic training programs should be developed and offered to parents.
Our results also suggest that the prevention program should be designed not only to
provide educational information, but also to cultivate decision-making skills. Previously, the
information provision model or literacy approach claimed that media and intervention programs
should provide more facts and increase general knowledge about alcohol and substance abuse.
The underlying assumption of this view is that if children have more information about alcohol
and substance consumption and its consequences, they will reduce such consumption. However,
this study supports alternative perspectives. Corroborating other efforts including social
influence models and resistance strategies approaches, the findings indicate that the intervention
program should incorporate decision-making skills training into the prevention program for kids
and parents.
Although our findings clearly demonstrate the importance of parenting training and
decision-making skills in intervention programs targeting youths alcohol consumption, some
2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

568

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

limitations need to be addressed. First, the study established treatment and control groups to
compare the effectiveness of intervention programs but did not involve random assignment
across two groups. Thus, the interpretation of causal relationships between the program and
outcome variables should be made with caution. For example, those who were willing to take the
combined program in a treatment condition tend to maintain good mother-child relationships in
the first place. However, as our results reflect long-term intervention effects instead of short-term
effects that can be demonstrated via controlled experiments, the implications of the current
findings should not be neglected. Additionally, this concern may be minimized given that our
pre-test results show no difference in terms of alcohol and substance use between control and
treatment groups. Future efforts may employ randomization to establish stronger causal
inferences.
Another limitation stems from the fact that our pretest survey did not include many other
control variables including socio-economic information. If we had more household-level data,
those data could have served as control variables, which could also alleviate concerns regarding
the lack of random assignment.
Finally, self-reports have many weaknesses. This concern is relevant because teenagers
may not want to disclose their experiences about their alcohol and substance use. Especially
considering that the intervention and survey tests were administered at the school level. It is
likely that students may answer the questions in a socially desirable way. To reduce this concern,
future research may need to measure implicit attitudes toward alcohol and other substances using
implicit association tests.

9. Conclusion
Taken together, our findings are promising. The results demonstrated the importance of
parenting programs suggesting that integrating life skills training for kids and Love and Logic for
parents can be a successful strategy in terms of substance abuse prevention programming. The
results corroborate previous evidence that incorporating parenting training could be an effective

2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.


Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

569

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

approach (Hadley et al., 2016; Crawford & Novak, 2002; Kuendig & Kuntsche, 2006). Based on
our results, we suggest that systematic training programs should be developed and offered to
parents along with life skills training for kids.

Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Amon G. Carter Foundation through the
Innovative Community Academic Partnership Program at the University of Texas at Arlington School of
Social Work. The statements and opinions expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors and do
not represent the official views of the foundation

REFERENCES
Arthur, M. W., Brown, E. C., Briney, J. S., Hawkins, J. D., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., . . .
Mueller, M. T. (2015). Examination of substance use, risk factors, and protective factors
on student academic test score performance. Journal of School Health, 85 (8), 497-507.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12279
Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L. D., Botvin, E. M., & Diaz, T. (1995). Long-term follow
up results of a randomized drug abuse prevention trial in a White middle-class population.
Journal

of

the

American

Medical

Association,

273,

11061112.

https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03520380042033https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.273.14.
1106
Botvin, G. J., Griffin, W. K. W., Paul, E., & Macaulay, A. P. (2003). Preventing tobacco and
alcohol use among elementary school students through Life Skills Training. Journal of
Child

&

Adolescent

Substance

Abuse,

12

(4),

1-

17.https://doi.org/10.1300/J029v12n04_01
Botvin, G. J., & Griffin, K. W. (2014). Life skills training: Preventing substance misuse by
enhancing individual and social competence. New Directions for Youth Development,
141, 57-65. doi:10.1002/yd.20086 https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20086
2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

570

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

Boyd, J., Fast, D., & Small, W. (2016). Pathways to criminalization for street-involved youth
who

use

illicit

substances.

Critical

Public

Health,

26

(5),

530-541.

doi:10.1080/09581596.2015.1110564https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2015.1110564
Byrnes, J. P. (1998). The nature and development of decision making: A self-regulation model.
Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Caplan, N., Choy, M., & Whitmore, J. (1992) Indochinese refugee families and academic
achievement.

Scientific

American,

266

(2),

36-42.

https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0292-36
Casey, E., & Beadnell, B. (2010). The structure of male adolescent peer networks and risk for
intimate partner violence perpetration: Findings from a national sample. Journal of Youth
& Adolescence, 39 (6), 620-633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9423-y
Center for Disease Control (CDC). (2010). Prevention of perinatal group B streptococcal disease.
Revised Guidelines from CDC.
Center for Disease Control (CDC). (2014). Surveillance Summaries. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6304a1.htm
Cleveland, M.J., Feinberg, M.E., & Greenberg, M.T. (2010). Protective families in high- and
low-risk environments: Implications for adolescent substance use. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 39 (2), 114-126.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9395-y
Collette, T., Pakzad, S., & Bergheul, S. (2015). Adolescent criminal acts committed and
substance use with a voluntary sample recruited from post-secondary institutions. Journal
of Alcohol & Drug Education, 59 (2), 64-91.
Connery, H. S., Albright, B. B., & Rodolico, J. M. (2014). Adolescent substance use and
unplanned pregnancy: Strategies for risk reduction. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of
North America, 41 (2), 191-203. doi:10.1016/j.ogc.2014.02.011
Crawford, L. A., & Novak, K. B. (2002). Parental and peer influences on adolescent drinking:
The relative impact of attachment and opportunity. Journal of Child and Adolescent
Substance Abuse, 12, 126. https://doi.org/10.1300/J029v12n01_01

2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.


Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

571

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

Curran, E. M. (2007). The relationship between social capital and substance use by high school
students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 51 (2), 59-73.
Edberg, M. (2007). Essentials of health behavior: Social and behavioral theory in public health.
Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Epstein, J. B., Emerton, S., Kolbinson, D. A., Le, N. D., Phillips, N., Stevenson-Moore, P., &
Osoba, D. (1999). Quality of life and oral function following radiotherapy for head and
neck cancer. Head and Neck, 21 (1), 1-11.https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10970347(199901)21:1<1::AID-HED1>3.3.CO;2-W

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-

0347(199901)21:1<1::AID-HED1>3.0.CO;2-4
Ellickson, P. L., & Bell, R. M. (1990). Drug prevention in junior high: A multi-site longitudinal
test, Science, 247, 12991305. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2180065
Ellickson, P. L., Bell, R. M., & McGuigan, K. (1993). Preventing adolescent drug use: Longterm results of a junior high program. American Journal of Public Health, 83 (6), 856-861.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.83.6.856
Faggiano, F., Vigna-Taglianti, F., Burkhart, G., Bohrn, K., Cuomo, L., Gregori, D., . . . the EUDap Study Group. (2005). The effectiveness of a school-based substance abuse
prevention program: 18-Month follow-up of the EU-Dap cluster randomized controlled
trial.

Drug

and

Alcohol

Dependence,

108

(1-2),

56-

64.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.11.018
Fay, C. (2012). Effects of the becoming a love and logic parent training program on parents
perceptions of their childrens behavior and their own parental stress. Golden, CO: The
Love and Logic People.
Galambos, N. L., Sears, H. A., Almeida, D. M., & Kolaric, G. C. (1995). Parents work overload
and problem behavior in young adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5 (2),
201-223. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0502_3
Gallagher, R., & Bruzzese, J.M. (2004). Parents as prevention agents in teen substance use: The
development and impact of thriving teens. Paper presented at the Society for Pediatric
Psychology National Conference on Child Health Psychology, Charleston, SC.
2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

572

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

Guerrero, F. D., Moolhuijzen, P., Peterson, D. G., Bidwell, S., Caler, E., Bellgard, M., . . .
Djikeng, A. (2010). Reassociation kinetics-based approach for partial genome sequencing
of the cattle tick, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. BMC Genomics, 11, 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-11-374
Hadley, W., Brown, L., Barker, D., Warren, J., Weddington, P., Fortune, T., & Juzang, I. (2016).
Work it out together: Preliminary efficacy of a parent and adolescent DVD and workbook
intervention on adolescent sexual and substance use attitudes and parenting behaviors.
AIDS

&

Behavior,

20

(9),

1961-1972.

doi:10.1007/s10461-016-1418-

6https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1418-6
Hansen, J. J., Fung, I. I., Lacis, A. A., Rind, D. D., Lebedeff, S. S., Ruedy, R. R., al. (1988).
Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies threedimensional model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 93

(D8), 9341-9364.

https://doi.org/10.1029/JD093iD08p09341
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol
and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance
abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64115. https://doi.org/10.1037/00332909.112.1.64
Johnston, L. D., OMalley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2009). Monitoring the
future, National results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings 2009. The
University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Bethesda, MA: National Institute
on Drug Abuse.
Kim, J. E., & Zane, N. (2016). Help-seeking intentions among Asian American and White
American students in psychological distress: Application of the health belief model.
Cultural

Diversity

and

Ethnic

Minority

Psychology,

22

(3),

311-321.

doi:10.1037/cdp0000056 https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000056
Kuendig, H., & Kuntsche, E. (2006). Family bonding and adolescent alcohol use: Moderating
effect of living with excessive drinking parents. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 41 (4), 464471.https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agl018
2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

573

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

Kuntsche, S., & Kuntsche, E. (2016). Parent-based interventions for preventing or reducing
adolescent substance useA systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review,
45, 89-101. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2016.02.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.02.004
Marsiglia, F., Ayers, S., Baldwin-White, A., Booth, J., Marsiglia, F. F., & Ayers, S. L. (2016).
Changing Latino adolescents' substance use norms and behaviors: The effects of
synchronized youth and parent drug use prevention interventions. Prevention Science, 17
(1), 1-12. doi:10.1007/s11121-015-0574-7https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0574-7
Marsiglia, F. F., Kulis, S. & Hecht, M. L. (2001). Ethnic labels and ethnic identity as predictors
of drug use and drug exposure among middle school students in the Southwest. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 11 (1), 21-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.00002
McLaughlin, A., Campbell, A., & McColgan, M. (2016). Adolescent substance use in the context
of the family: A qualitative study of young people's views on parent-child attachments,
parenting style and parental substance use. Substance Use & Misuse, 51 (14), 18461855.https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2016.1197941
Moon, S., Patton, J., & Rao, U. (2010). An ecological approach to understanding youth violence:
The mediating role of substance use. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social
Environment, 20 (7), 839-856. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911351003751918
Noyori-Corbett, C., & Moon, S. (2010). Multifaceted reality of juvenile delinquency: An
empirical analysis of structural theories and literature. Child & Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 27 (4), 245-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-010-0205-x
Paglia, A., & Room, R. (1999). Preventing substance use problems among youth: A literature
review

and

recommendations.

Journal

of

Primary

Prevention,

20,

350.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021302302085
Pantin, H., Prado, G., Lopez, B., Huang, S., Tapia, M. I., Schwartz, S. J., . . . Branchini, J. (2009).
A randomized controlled trial of Familias Unidas for Hispanic behavior-problem
adolescents.

Psychosomatic

Medicine,

71,

987-995.

https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181bb2913

2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.


Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

574

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

Parcel, T. L., & Dufur, M. J. (2001). Capital at home and at school: Effects on child social
adjustment.

Journal

of

Marriage

and

the

Family,

63

(1),

32-47.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00032.x
Scheier, L. M., & Botvin, G. J. (1998). Relations of social skills, personal competence, and
adolescent alcohol use: A developmental exploratory study. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 18 (1), 77-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431698018001004
Singh, R. D., Jimerson, S. R., Renshaw, T., Saeki, E., Hart, S. R., Earhart, J., & Stewart, K.
(2011). A summary and synthesis of contemporary empirical evidence regarding the
effects of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program (D.A.R.E.). Contemporary
School Psychology, 15, 93-102.
Smith, E. P., Faulk, M., & Sizer, M. A. (2016). Exploring the meso-system: The roles of
community, family, and peers in adolescent delinquency and positive youth development.
Youth & Society, 48 (3), 318-343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X13491581
Spaeth, M., Weichold, K., Silbereisen, R. K., & Wiesner, M. (2010). Examining the differential
effectiveness of a Life Skills Program (IPSY) on alcohol use trajectories in early
adolescence. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 78 (3), 334-348.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019550
Sussman, S., Earleywine, M., Wills, T., Cody, C., Biglan, T., Dent, C. W., & Newcomb, M. D.
(2004). The motivation, skills, and decision-making model of drug abuse prevention.
Substance Use & Misuse, 39 (10-12), 1971-2016. https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-200034769
Sussman, S., Rohrbach, L., & Mihalic, S. (2004). Blueprints for violence prevention, book
twelve: Project towards no drug abuse. (D. S. Elliott, Series Editor). Boulder, CO: Center
for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
Colorado.
Telleen, S., Kim, Y., & Pesce, R. (2009). An ecological developmental community initiative to
reduce youth violence: Safe Schools/Healthy Students. Journal of Prevention &
Intervention

in

the

Community,

37

(4),

326-338.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10852350903196340
2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

575

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences


ISSN 2454-5899

Tobler, N. (1997). Meta-analysis of adolescent drug prevention programs: Results of the 1993
meta-analysis. In Meta-analysis of drug abuse prevention programs (pp. 5-68). Rockville,
MD: United States Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of
Health.
Tobler, N. S., Roona, M. R., Ochshorn, P., Marshall, D. G., Streke, A. V., & Stackpole, K. M.
(2000). School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. The
Journal

of

Primary

Prevention,

20

(4),

275-336.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021314704811
Trudeau, L., Lillehoj, C., Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (2003). The role of assertiveness and
decision making in early adolescent substance initiation: Mediating processes. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 13 (3), 301-328. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.1303003
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Poverty guidelines, research, and
measurement. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/
Weichold, K., & Blumenthal, A. (2016). Long-term effects of the Life Skills program IPSY on
substance use: Results of a 4.5-year longitudinal study. Prevention Science, 17 (1), 13-23.
doi:10.1007/s11121-015-0576-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0576-5
Wenzel, V., Weichold, K., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2009). The life skills program IPSY: Positive
influences on school bonding and prevention of substance misuse. Journal of
Adolescence, 32 (6), 1391-1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.05.008

2016 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved.


Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/

576